This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable IBM long double for PPC32 Linux
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: dje at watson dot ibm dot com (David Edelsohn)
- Cc: giovannibajo at libero dot it (Giovanni Bajo), mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gerald at pfeifer dot com (Gerald Pfeifer), weigand at i1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de (Ulrich Weigand), krebbel1 at de dot imb dot com, jakub at redhat dot com (Jakub Jelinek), Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM (Joe Buck)
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:14:22 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable IBM long double for PPC32 Linux
>
> >>>>> Giovanni Bajo writes:
>
> Giovanni> This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the policy is
> Giovanni> not on the maintainers that prepare the patches? The people involved in this
> Giovanni> change have been working on GCC much longer than those who (later) objected.
> Giovanni> They should have known our rules much better, and they should have asked a
> Giovanni> buy-in from SC before starting this work, instead of silently forcing it in,
> Giovanni> and then see if they could shut up the people who object (if any).
>
> This is an unfair characterization. Target-specific changes have
> been committed to GCC close to a release ever since I started working on
> GCC over fifteen years ago. Every Release Manager has tried to accomodate
> port maintainers.
Maybe in the past but those were exceptions and never should have the rule.
In fact the same day at which I raised an objection, the RM rejected an
even simplier patch which only touches an installed header and not the
compiler itself.
> I also do not see anyone trying to prevent people from objecting.
> I do see a few people repeatedly raising the same objections without
> constructive suggestions, despite public replies responding to the
> concerns. That type of discussion is not productive.
Your attitude towards Joern's request for help with a regression was really
what got my over the board. Your suggestion that a primary target was more
important even for an enhancement matter than over a regression was really
out of line.
I actually did raise more than just objections, I also suggested a way to
get this resolve this, by delaying the release of 4.1 by two more months.
I know this pointed at me but it looks like you never really read my emails
after all.
-- Pinski